Voting Rights & Rules – The Lowdownhttps://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown
KQED Public Media for Northern CASat, 10 Dec 2016 00:12:43 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2MAP: States With New Voting Restrictions in Place for the 2016 Presidential Electionhttps://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/11/08/how-to-navigate-americas-perplexing-patchwork-of-voting-laws/
Tue, 08 Nov 2016 22:00:44 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=14543Continue reading MAP: States With New Voting Restrictions in Place for the 2016 Presidential Election→]]>Think you know your state’s voting rules? Better check again before heading to the polls.

Depending on the state you live in, those rules may have gotten a good deal more restrictive since the last time you voted.

In 14 states, this is the first presidential election with new voting restrictions in place, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit law and policy institute that advocates for more inclusive voting policies.

The new voting laws have been mostly instituted in states with Republican-led legislatures, with the ostensible intention of reducing voter fraud. The changes, which snowballed after a 2013 Supreme Court ruling scaling back the Voting Rights Act, range from photo ID requirements and felon voting restrictions to shorter registration windows and limited early voting periods.

Among these, voter identification requirements remain the most controversial. Because certain kinds of government-issued ID, particularly photo IDs, often require administrative fees and waiting times, opponents say these requirements hearken back to the poll taxes of the Jim Crow South, a blatant effort to prevent entire communities from voting.

Roughly 11 percent of eligible voters don’t have government-issued photo IDs, according to the Brennan Center.

North Carolina’s 2013 voter ID law was recently struck down by a federal appeals court, which found that the law was intentionally aimed at the black vote. Two separate court rulings this summer scaled back new voting restrictions in Texas and Wisconsin.

Most new voting laws haven’t been in place long enough to accurately measure their impact on participation. But several studies predict that these laws could thwart hundreds of thousands of otherwise eligible voters from voting. In one recent study, political scientists at the University of California, San Diego compared voter turnout from 2008 to 2012 in states that did and did not implement strict voter ID laws. In states that began enforcing these laws, voter participation decreased markedly, particularly among blacks, Hispanics and mixed-race groups.

Proponents of stricter laws counter that voter fraud remains a serious threat that needs to be addressed.

“Our Republic flourishes when citizens are confident that their vote is free, fair, and secure,” notes Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of the advocacy group True the Vote. But concern over election fraud, she adds “jeopardizes our entire system of government, eroding our trust in elected leaders and undermining our confidence in the system by which they govern – beginning at the polls and rising up through the highest offices in the land.”

But even though a majority of Americans favor voter ID requirements numerous non-partisan studies of voting records show that voter fraud is exceptionally rare and statistically insignificant.

“It’s really not one America when it comes to voting,” Judith Brown-Dianis of the Advancement Project explains in the documentary Electoral Dysfunction.

In fact, the text of the original Constitution doesn’t actually include a single mention of voting rights; the founders left this to the discretion of states. Only subsequent amendments (namely, the 15th, 19th, 23rd and 26th) prevent voting rights from being denied to certain formerly disenfranchised populations (people of color, women, 18 to 20-year-olds). States, though, remain largely free to determine their own voting procedures.

“The Constitution, at the nation’s birth, made no mention of voting rights whatsoever,” Harvard University History Professor Alex Keyssar notes in the documentary. “[The Founders] were unsure, in fact, whether voting was a right or a privilege. And if it was a right, they weren’t sure who the right actually belonged to.”

It’s an ambiguity that continues to play out today: voting laws vary drastically from one state to the next, helping to determine who’s allowed to participate and who gets stuck watching from the sidelines.

Roughly 6.1 million voting-age American citizens who have been convicted of crimes are restricted from voting in next week’s presidential election because of felon disenfranchisement laws.

That’s about 2.5 percent of the total U.S. voting-age population – 1 of every 40 adults – that can’t vote because of a current or previous felony conviction, according to recent analysis by the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice reform group.

Most of this population is not currently incarcerated. In fact, convicted felons in prison and jail today represent less than 25 percent of the disenfranchised population, according to the report. The vast majority are out of prison and living back in their communities.

More than half of this total disenfranchised population lives in 12 mostly conservative states with the most stringent restrictions. In nine of these states, voting rights are routinely denied to convicted felons who have completed their post-sentence supervision (probation or parole).

In Florida, a major swing state, more than 10 percent of the voting age population is disenfranchised. Felon voting rights are only restored through a governor’s executive action or a court order. Similar rules apply in Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi and Virginia.

This map shows state felon disenfranchisement rates and related voting restrictions. Note that for the most restrictive states, voting can only be reinstated through the governor’s pardon or a court order. Arizona and Nevada offer exceptions for first-time offenders convicted of less serious crimes. And in Wyoming, rights are restored for non-violent felon upon completion of their sentences. A complete description of current rules is listed here.

The United States has among the world’s most restrictive felon disenfranchisement laws.

These state prohibitions disproportionately affect African-Americans, particularly black men: one of every 13 African-Americans of voting age — more than 7 percent nationally — is disenfranchised, according to Sentencing Project’s analysis. In some of the strictest states, more than 20 percent of the African American population is disenfranchised, the report found.

Conversely, Maine and Vermont, both overwhelmingly white, are the only two states without any felon voting restrictions; even inmates can vote.

“Fundamentally it’s a question of democracy and how we define who can participate,” said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project. “When people are convicted of felonies, they should receive the appropriate punishment, but we don’t normally take away their fundamental rights of citizenship.”

Convicted felons, he notes, even those who are still incarcerated, retain many of their individual rights, including the ability to get married and divorced and to buy and sell property. The First Amendment right to free speech is also mostly preserved for felons (an inmate can write a letter-to-the-editor, for instance), with limitations generally only having to do with to security-related concerns.

Supporters of felon disenfranchisement laws defend their constitutionality and argue that it’s ultimately for individual states to determine. Some insist that committing a serious crime indicates a strong lack of moral character and trustworthiness, which they say is ample justification for denying the right to vote.

Despite the growth of the disenfranchised population, several states have started to re-examine their policies.

Mostly recently, the Maryland legislature moved to automatically restore voting rights to felons after their release from prison. The change, which went into effect in March, impacts an estimated 40,000 people who will be able to participate in the upcoming national election.

In April, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, issued an executive order restoring voting rights to more than 200,000 felons who had completed their sentences. The move, however, was struck down in July by the state Supreme Court, which ruled that the governor had overstepped his authority by restoring rights all at once rather than on a case by case basis. In response, McAuliffe announced that his administration would individually process applications for 13,000 felons so could have the opportunity to vote in November.

]]>https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/02/26/felon-voting/feed/41The Fight to Vote: America’s Turbulent Voting Rights History [Interactive Timeline]https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/08/25/the-fight-to-vote-a-history-of-voting-rights-in-america/
Fri, 26 Aug 2016 06:12:18 +0000http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=23300Continue reading The Fight to Vote: America’s Turbulent Voting Rights History [Interactive Timeline]→]]>The United States prides itself as a beacon of democracy on the world stage. But universal suffrage has been elusive throughout its history.

From the early years of the republic, when voting was almost exclusively reserved for propertied white men, the right to vote has very gradually grown more inclusive, expanding to an ever broader cross-section of the American public. But this progress has almost always been hard fought.

Scroll thorough this timeline to learn about some of the key moments in America’s long struggle for voting rights.

]]>handsBallot Battles: A Cartoon History of Voting Rights (with Lesson Plan)https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/08/08/the-state-of-voting-rights-in-america-a-3-part-comic-series/
Tue, 09 Aug 2016 01:30:46 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=14839Continue reading Ballot Battles: A Cartoon History of Voting Rights (with Lesson Plan)→]]>Voting rights activists had cause for celebration last week after federal courts struck down strict new voting requirements in several major states.

The separate rulings, which come just a few months before the presidential election, reverse strict voter restrictions in Texas, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

Teach with the Lowdown!Nonfiction analysis, discussion prompts and multimedia projects for teachers and students.

Comic journalist Andy Warner explains, in three illustrated parts, the history of the Voting Rights Act, what the Supreme Court’s recent decision did and what the state of voting looked like, up until the most recent court decisions. Click on the images below to view as a slideshow, or read the comics in their entirety.

]]>handsVRA_Slice1SupremeCourt_Slice1SupremeCourt_Slice2_typocorrect1SupremeCourt_Slice3SupremeCourt_Slice4SupremeCourt_Slice5SupremeCourt_Slice6SupremeCourt_Slice7_typocorrect1SupremeCourt_Slice8SupremeCourt_Slice9SupremeCourt_Slice10SupremeCourt_Slice11SupremeCourt_Slice12SupremeCourt_Slice13SupremeCourt_Slice14TheStates_slice1TheStates_slice1850 Years after “Bloody Sunday,” Still Miles to Go in March for Voting Rightshttps://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2015/03/09/how-far-weve-come-how-far-we-still-have-to-go-50-years-after-bloody-sunday-in-selma-still-miles-to-go-in-fight-for-racial-equality/
Tue, 10 Mar 2015 01:02:15 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=16497Continue reading 50 Years after “Bloody Sunday,” Still Miles to Go in March for Voting Rights→]]>Selma to Montgomery march, 1965. (Bruce Davidson/Magnum)

Thousands of marchers joined President Obama and other leaders this weekend in the small city of Selma, Alabama, where 50 years ago police violently attacked peaceful demonstrators demanding the right to vote.

In what became known as Bloody Sunday, the nationally televised sparked widespread outrage as viewers around the country watched shocking footage of white state troopers and a sheriff’s posse ruthlessly beating hundreds of mostly black demonstrators trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge (named for a Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan) . As the new film Selma dramatically recounts, the event was pivotal in strengthening public support for the Civil Rights Movement and persuading President Lyndon Johnson to push for voting rights legislation.

A year after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, blacks throughout the South — and other regions — were still blatantly denied the right to vote. Discriminatory state sanctioned tactics including intimidation and virtually impossible to pass voter literacy tests continued to prevent the vast majority of eligible black voters from registering. Of Selma’s voting age black population, roughly 2 percent were registered.

In one scene from the film, during a fictionalized account of a meeting with Johnson at the White House, Martin Luther King, Jr. attempts to win the president’s support for voting rights legislation by framing it as key to a host of other racial equality issues. Voting protections, he argued, would allow southern blacks to influence and change a political structure and justice system that had long been designed to suppress their rights. King realized that voting was a critical element in the fight for racial equality, a visible and tangible entry point that people could easily rally around.

“We cannot, we must not, refuse to protect the right of every American to vote in every election that he may desire to participate in. And we ought not and we cannot and we must not wait another 8 months before we get a bill. We have already waited a hundred years and more, and the time for waiting is gone …

But even if we pass this bill, the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and state of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome.”

Later that month, King and other leaders of the movement successfully led thousands of marchers from Selma to the state capitol in Montgomery, protected along the way by the National Guard on Johnson’s orders. By August 1965, just five months after Bloody Sunday, Johnson had signed the Voting Rights Act, one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.

The law banned discriminatory voting practices, authorizing the deployment of federal election monitors and requiring specific states and counties with a history of discrimination to seek explicit approval from the Justice Department before making any changes in local election rules.

The results were dramatic and immediate: More than 27,000 African-Americans in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi successfully registered to vote in the first three weeks after the law’s passage. Within the first two years, In Mississippi alone, registration among eligible black voters jumped from 6.7 percent of the state’s eligible black voters to nearly 60 percent.

In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act. The court’s conservative majority ruled that the time’s had changed and the law’s safeguards were no longer necessary. The decision stripped the law of its primary enforcement mechanism requiring federal oversight of jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination — including most of the South.

Almost immediately after the decision, Texas and North Carolina, freed from restrictions, introduced controversial voter photo ID legislation. Many of the other previously monitored states have followed suit, enacting laws restricting voting access, including strict voter ID requirements and limitations on early voting and absentee ballots.

Although conservative proponents defend the new rules as necessary in preventing voter fraud, the changes have a disproportionately negative impact on poor, minority voters who are more likely lack photo identification and often depend heavily on more flexible voting options.

During the ceremonies in Selma this weekend, a succession of speakers beseeched the nation to wage a renewed battle for voting rights protections as the best way to honor the legacy of the protesters who risked their lives half a century ago.

“We have witnessed over the last few years, the worst assault on voting rights since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965,” Rev. Raphael Warnock, of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, told USA Today. “Come this weekend we’ll see a parade of politicians make their way to Selma. Our message to those politicians is that you cannot celebrate the lessons of history while sitting on the wrong side of history.”

Obama echoed this sentiment in his address Saturday in front of the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

“Right now, in 2015, 50 years after Selma, there are laws across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote,” he said. As we speak, more such laws are being proposed. Meanwhile, the Voting Rights Act, the culmination of so much blood, so much sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence, stands weakened, its future subject to political rancor. How can that be? The VRA was one of the crowning achievements of our democracy, the result of Republican and Democratic efforts … If want to honor this day (let Congress) pledge to make it their mission to restore that law this year. That’s how we honor those on this bridge.”

Obama also criticized the strikingly low rate of voter turnout across the country in recent years.

“If every new voter suppression law was struck down today, we would still have, here in America, one of the lowest voting rates among free people,” he added. “What’s our excuse today for not voting? How do we so causally discard the right for which so many fought. How do we so fully give away our power, our voice in shaping America’s future?”

Gov. Robert Bentley of Alabama, a Republican, also spoke on Saturday, noting that he hoped the occasion would show how much Alabama had changed since those tumultuous days.

“We want people in America and the world to realize that Alabama is a different place and a different state than it was 50 years ago,” Bentley told theNew York Times. “It has become probably as much of a colorblind state as any state in the country, and we’re very proud of the advancement we’ve made.”

Take Selma. In 1965, the city’s population was nearly evenly divided. But after a half century of white flight, about 80 percent of its 20,000 residents today are black and the town’s infrastructure is literally crumbling.

However, the Selma Country Club still does not have a single black member, the Washington Post reports.

Dallas County, where Selma is located, was ranked poorest in the state last year, with one of the highest child poverty rates in the nation and unemployment hovering above 10 percent — almost twice the national average. 40 percent of Selma’s families, and about two-thirds of its children, live below the poverty line, with a violent crime rate roughly five times the state average, according to U.S. Census figures.

Early in his speech on Saturday, Obama noted these persistent disparities. Although praising the tremendous gains in equality that have come about as a result of the sacrifices demonstrators here made 50 years ago, the president rejected the notion that racism has been defeated.

“We don’t need the Ferguson report to know that’s not true,” he said. “We just need to open our eyes and our ears and our hearts to know that this nation’s racial history still casts its long shadow upon us. We know the march is not yet over. We know the race is not yet won. We know reaching that blessed destination where we are judged, all of us, by the content of our character requires admitting as much, facing up to the truth.”

How it works

The top-two system made its debut in 2012 after voters approved Proposition 14 two years earlier. But this is the first primary where the new rules take effect in statewide races.

The basic gist: you can vote for any candidate in a particular race regardless of political party affiliation. That’s because every candidate from every party is lumped together in one big political crock pot (yes, that’s crock, not crack). And for most state races, any voter can choose a candidate from any party.

The two candidates – from any party – that get the most votes in the primary will then face each other in the general election in November.

Part of a sample ballot (California Legislative Analyst’s Office)

These new rules apply to all legislative and state races, but not the presidential race.

So for some races this year, you may have noticed a surprisingly long list of candidates on your ballot. That’s because you’re going to see the names of everyone from every party who’s running for that office.

For instance:

If two Republicans, two Democrats, and one Libertarian are all running in a primary election for a state assembly seat in your district, you can now vote for any candidate you want, regardless of your own party affiliation. And no matter how many different candidates from different parties are in the primary race, only two candidates will make it to general election.

One of the interesting potential outcomes of this new system is that some primary races could result in two candidates from the same party facing each other in the general election (if they respectively get the first and second highest amount of votes in the primary).

And unlike the old system, third party candidates who aren’t within the top two in the primary, won’t be on the ballot in November. The new rule also eliminates the possibility of adding on write-in candidates in the general election (again, with the exception of the presidential election).

For more on how the process works, Alameda County provides a good explanation with visuals.

What’s the point of this?

Prop 14 was championed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a means of reforming California’s bitterly divided political system and breaking the gridlock in Sacramento. With a war chest of nearly $5 million, proponents of the measure made the case that an open primary process would force candidates to appeal to voters across party lines and reach a larger swath of the public, resulting in a less divided class of elected officials. Backers also argued that increasing the number of choices on the ballot would boost voter turnout and give more political voice to California’s growing contingent of independent voters (who make up about 20 percent of the electorate).

On the other side of the debate, both the state’s Republican and Democratic party leaders, as well as a number of smaller parties and big labor unions, strongly denounced the measure on grounds that it would make primary campaigns significantly more expensive (because candidates would need to appeal to voters across party lines) and thus benefit the richest candidates with the most name recognition. Opponents also argued that it would decimate the authority of individual political parties and all but eliminate opportunities for third party candidates to advance to the general election (remember that in the old system, one candidate from every party running in the primary was was guaranteed a spot in November).

In the end, though, nearly 54 percent of voters approved the measure, an indication of the public’s growing discontent with California’s political establishment. Some analysts, however, suggested that many of the voters supporting the measure may not have fully understood what they were voting for. And interestingly, San Francisco and Orange County, on opposite ends of California’s political spectrum, were among the only counties to oppose it.

Déjà vu?

No — just California politics.

In 1996, voters approved Proposition 198, which instituted the “blanket primary.” The system was similar, in that voters could choose any candidate regardless of party affiliation. But it still resulted in one candidate from each party advancing to the general election.

The system was challenged in federal court and ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision on the basis that it violated a political party’s First Amendment right of association.

More recently, another attempt to institute open primaries in California appeared on the 2004 ballot, but got the smack-down.

]]>ope_ACGovacgov.orgLAO_ballotCalifornia Legislative Analysts OfficeA Cartoon History of the Voting Rights Act [Part 1]https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2013/11/05/voting-rights/
Wed, 04 Dec 2013 19:56:29 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=10384Continue reading A Cartoon History of the Voting Rights Act [Part 1]→]]>The U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down a key part of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. In the first of his three-part illustrated series on voting rights in America, comic journalist Andy Warner tells the story of the Voting Rights Act. Scroll through the slideshow or read it as a single image graphic below.

]]>
VRA_Slice1SelfPortraitHow the Supreme Court Stripped the Voting Rights Act of its Muscle [Part 2]https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2013/11/15/supreme-court-voting-rights/
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:00:04 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=10596Continue reading How the Supreme Court Stripped the Voting Rights Act of its Muscle [Part 2]→]]>The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act significantly weakens the federal government’s authority to prevent voter discrimination in state and local elections. In the second of his three-part illustrated series on voting rights in America, Andy Warner explains the court’s decision and the immediate implications of the ruling (see part 1 here). View the full graphic below the slideshow.

]]>SupremeCourt_Slice1SupremeCourt_Slice2_typocorrect1SupremeCourt_Slice3SupremeCourt_Slice4SupremeCourt_Slice5SupremeCourt_Slice6SupremeCourt_Slice7_typocorrect1SupremeCourt_Slice8SupremeCourt_Slice9SupremeCourt_Slice10SupremeCourt_Slice11SupremeCourt_Slice12SupremeCourt_Slice13SupremeCourt_Slice14SelfPortraitA New Era of Voter Suppression [Part 3]https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2013/11/27/voting-obstacles/
Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:00:11 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=10784Continue reading A New Era of Voter Suppression [Part 3]→]]>Almost immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision last June to strike down a key oversight provision in the Voting Rights Act, a handful of states enacted controversial new voting rules that had previously been barred. In the third part of his illustrated series (see part 1 and part 2), Andy Warner explains some of these changes. View the full graphic below the slideshow.